w w w . e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

Conflict at the CanyonDusty Horwitt, Senior Counsel, Environmental Working Group

Lauren Pagel, Policy Director, Earthworks

June 2011

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 20112

e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

Backgroundi. Conflict at the Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ii. Water Utilities, Others Warn of Uranium Mining Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

iii. Interior Weighing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

iv. Uranium Mining Has Toxic History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

v. Uranium Pollution Debated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

vi. Russian company owns 642 claims near park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

vii. BLM: “Springs could dry up…” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

viii. Recommendations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

ix. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Contents

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 2011 3

Conflict at the Canyon

The Obama administration is expected to announce soon whether it will lift a two-year-old moratorium on new uranium mining claims on 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon. But the government’s decision could be swayed by the analysis of a corporate mining consultant who stands to reap hundreds of thousands of dollars if the moratorium is lifted.

The administration is considering an envi-ronmental impact study, issued Feb. 18 by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Manage-ment, that effectively dismisses the threat of contamination by uranium mining activity near the Colorado River, which flows through the Canyon. Some 26 million Americans depend on the Colorado River for drinking water.

In downplaying risks to the Colorado River, BLM relied heavily on research by Karen J. Wenrich, a prominent Golden, Colo., based-ge-ologist and uranium mining industry consultant who serves on the advisory board of American Energy Fields, a uranium mining company based in Apache Junction, Ariz.1 Yet BLM did not disclose that Wenrich and her client American Energy Fields have a direct financial stake in the administration’s decision on lifting the moratorium.

Three days prior to release of the BLM study, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, American Energy Fields consummated a deal to purchase 61 mining claims from Wenrich for $225,000. The purchase is contingent on an administration decision to open the million-acre area to new claims.2

BLM’s 1,000-page study contains little more than three pages assessing potential mining pol-lution threats to the Colorado. It calculates that because the river flows at a rate of 1.6 million gallons of water per minute, contamination from uranium-polluted springs that feed the river would be unnoticeable. The BLM also mini-mizes pollution impacts from floods that might wash uranium-mining debris into the river.

This three-page analysis relies on just seven sources to assess contamination risks to the river. Two of the sources are papers authored by a uranium mining company, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. A third citation is a summary of a paper by Wenrich and co-author Jon E. Spencer, a senior geologist at the Arizona Geological Survey.

The Wenrich-Spencer paper, dated Septem-ber 2010,3 dismissed the risks of uranium spills. “Spencer and Wenrich (2010) projected that the change in concentration of dissolved uranium in

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 20114

e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

the Colorado River in response to a hy-pothetical spill of 30 tons of high-grade uranium ore would be undetectable,” the BLM wrote.4

According to an investigation by Environmental Working Group and Earthworks, BLM’s LR2000 database, its official list of mining claimholders, shows that Wenrich had staked 61 mining claims inside the million-acre area around the Canyon in 2007 and 2008.5 The Feb. 15, 2011, deal with American Energy Fields would pay her $225,000 for the claims, plus a 2.5 percent royalty for any uranium mined and other compensation.6 The purchase agreement that American Energy Fields filed with the SEC included an important con-tingency:

“The consummation of the Mining Purchase will occur only in the event that certain actions taken by the Bureau of Land Management… are terminated within five (5) years from the date of the Agreement.” The “actions” are defined as an end to the Interior Department’s moratorium on

Mining claims Claims held by Karen J. Wenrich

Area Interior Department has proposed to put off-limits to new mining claims.

Map Legend

3,500 Mining Claims near Grand Canyon National Park

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 2011 5

new claim staking in the million-acre area in a decision that leaves at least 50 percent of Wen-rich’s claims open to development.7

Neither Wenrich nor American Energy Fields responded to phone calls seeking comment.

The ultimate value of Wenrich’s claims and the 3,450 or so other mining claims staked in the million-acre area hinges on the administra-tion’s upcoming decision. The White House cannot legally nullify existing claims, but a decision to bar new claims would erect some legal hurdles to exploiting existing claims. If, on the other hand, the administration opens the area to new claim staking, owners of existing claims are likely to have an easier time trans-forming their claims into actual uranium mines.

According to her 2009 testimony before a House Natural Resources Subcommittee and a news release from a uranium company for which she worked, Wenrich holds a Ph.D. in geology and spent 25 years at the U.S. Geological Survey, specializing in mining-related and envi-ronmental issues. After retiring, she spent several years as a geologist for the International Atomic Energy Agency.8

She then went into the mining industry. In 2005, Liberty Star Gold Corp. (later renamed Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corp.), based in Arizona, announced that Wenrich had joined

Claimholder Number of Claims

Patrick Hillard 812

Uranium One Americas Inc 643

Liberty Star Gold Corp 426

Vane Minerals (US) LLC 359

George McCormick 243

Tournigan USA Inc 147

Nu Star Expl LLC 124

Walter S Lombardo 102

Quaterra Alaska Inc 101

Dir Expl Inc 98

Denison Arizona Strip LLC 84

Neutron Energy Inc 82

Arizona Strip Res Joint Venture 78

North Expl LLC 63

Karen J Wenrich 61

Kris K Hefton 46

Cliff Phillips 40

Larry D Turner 39

North American Expl Inc 15

Energy Fuel Resources 9

Lawrence D Turner 9

Anthony Borcic 6

Joe Borcic 6

Ken Puchlik 5

Dennis McCormick 4

Gregory D Yount 3

Christopher J Crossland 2

Eagle Hill Arizona Uranium LLC 2

Steven Dove 1

William M Sheriff 1

The Northern AZ Uranium Proj 1

Total Claims 3,503*

Claimholders within million-acre area near Grand Canyon

*Total claims are less than sum of all claims because some claims are jointly held. Source: BLM LR2000 database, March 1, 2011 download.

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 20116

e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

its technical advisory board.9 Liberty Star holds 426 claims inside the million-acre area, accord-ing to BLM’s database. Wenrich is no longer af-filiated with the company, according to a spokes-person for Liberty Star. In recent years, Wenrich has also consulted for the mining industry under the business names Wenrich Consulting 4 U and CrystalUnlimited.10

Federal regulations for drafting environmental impact analyses do not prohibit reliance on re-searchers who have financial conflicts of interest. They do require that “agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integ-rity, of the discussions and analyses in environ-mental impact statements.”11

Water Utilities, Others Warn of Uranium Mining Pollution

Conservation organizations and Native American tribes are campaigning to stop both new claims and the exploitation of existing claims, on grounds that uranium mining would threaten the health of residents and water users and despoil the lands around the Canyon. Major water suppliers that draw their water from the Colorado, including the Central Arizona Project, Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali-fornia and Southern Nevada Water Authority, have weighed in with their own concerns about

the potential impact of uranium mining on the river.

“The effects of increased mining within the subject area may affect consumer confidence over the safety and reliability of the Colorado River for its use as a municipal drinking water supply, irrespective of any definitive public health impacts,” the Lower Colorado River Water Quality Partnership wrote in a May 3, 2011 letter to the Interior Department.

“Considering the tragic aftermath of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the public has a heightened concern over the po-tential for even minute amounts of radiation in water supplies.”12

The Lower Colorado River Water Partner-ship includes the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 19 million people in the Los Angeles basin; the Central Arizona Project, which supplies drinking and agricultural water to 80 percent of the state, including metro Phoenix and Tucson, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, with 2 million customers in the Las Vegas metro area. All draw much of their water from the Colorado River after it passes through the Grand Canyon and is stored at Hoover Dam.

The partnership wrote that “given the uncer-tainty in the location and number of mines to be

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 2011 7

operated under each alternative, the Partnership requests that worst-case scenarios be fully evalu-ated in the [final environmental impact state-ment] in terms of the water quality effects on the Colorado River and its tributaries.”13

Interior Weighing Options

The Bureau of Land Management has laid out four options for managing the million acres near the Grand Canyon:

• Barring new claims for 20 years on 1 million acres, with 11 mines likely to be dug on existing claims.

• Barring new claims for 20 years on 700,000 acres, with 18 mines likely.

• Barring new claims for 20 years on 300,000 acres, with 26 mines likely.

• Opening the entire area to new mining claims, with 30 mines likely.

A decision to allow new claims inside the million-acre area near Grand Canyon National Park would benefit existing claimholders by allowing mining to proceed without the need for a validity exam in which BLM would determine whether a claim contains a valuable mineral deposit.14

Interior contends that it is virtually powerless to prevent mining on a valid claim.15 It might

be able to buy out claims to prevent mines that could pollute the Grand Canyon or Colorado River, but this tactic would likely cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In 1995, the Clinton admin-istration negotiated a $65 million deal to buy out a major gold mine that would have threat-ened Yellowstone National Park.16 Since many more uranium claims are at issue, the costs of buy-outs at the Grand Canyon could be much greater.

The issue has come to the fore because mining claims around the Grand Canyon and Colorado surged during the mid-2000s, driven by rising prices for other types of energy, speculation on uranium prices and hopes that nuclear power could help prevent global warming.

But when Environmental Working Group reported that claims within five miles of the Canyon had surged from 10 in 2003 to 815 in 2007 – U.S. Mining Database: Mining Law Threatens Grand Canyon, other Natural Trea-sures, the ensuing controversy and actions by dozens of other organizations convinced Interior to declare a two-year moratorium on new claims in the million-acre boundary. That period ends July 21.

Uranium Mining Has Toxic History

Uranium mining near the canyon is highly

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 20118

e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

controversial because digging for the radioac-tive metal has left a toxic legacy of cancer and contamination throughout the Southwest. In a 2006 series, the Los Angeles Times chronicled the death and disease suffered by scores of members of the Navajo nation. Uranium mining on their reservation during the Cold War was consid-ered a prime suspect.17 In 1979, a dam near Church Rock, N.M., burst, sending 1,100 tons of uranium mining waste and 93 million gallons of radioactive water into the Rio Puerco River. The toxic material traveled roughly 80 miles downstream, contaminating drinking water used by the Navajos and their livestock. The area was designated a federal Superfund site.18

In 2009, the U.S. government began removing a 16-million-ton pile of uranium mine tailings from the banks of the Colorado

River near Moab, Utah, in an effort to prevent water contamination. The estimated cost of the cleanup is $1 billion.19

The three major Colorado River water provid-ers highlighted this cleanup effort in their May 3 letter to Interior. “Historical uranium mining has led to considerable environmental damage, with subsequent cleanup efforts taking decades to complete,” they wrote. “One prime example is the uranium mill tailings pile that sits along the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. Although removal of the 16-million-ton tailings pile is underway, the remediation of this site comes with considerable costs and the prolonged threat to the Colorado River persists until final cleanup is complete. It is therefore critical that poten-tial water quality effects are fully understood prior to the exploration and mining of uranium

Russian company owns 642 claims near park

Foreign mining companies hold a substantial percentage of the 3,503

uranium-mining claims within the 1-million-acre area around the Grand

Canyon. Among them is the Russian state-owned mining company Atom-

redmetzoloto, or ARMZ, which last year purchased a controlling interest in

Uranium One Inc., a Canadian company that held 642 claims.39 Uranium

One is engaged in uranium mining in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan.40

Reps. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), Peter King (R-N.Y.), Howard McKeon

(R-Calif.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) asked Treasury Secretary

Timothy Geithner and other top administration officials to prevent ARMZ

from acquiring a Wyoming uranium processing facility operated by Uranium

One USA Inc., a subsidiary of Uranium One. They argued that ARMZ’s

parent company, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear power company, had

helped Iran build a nuclear power reactor and had supplied the reactor with

enriched-uranium fuel rods. Many Western experts suspect that Iran is using

its civilian nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons capability.41 “We

remain concerned that Iran could receive uranium supplies through direct or

secondary proliferation,” the House members wrote.42

The Obama administration declined to interfere with the transaction.

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesperson told EWG and Earth-

works that neither Uranium One nor ARMZ has a permit to export U.S.-

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 2011 9

and other minerals in all areas proximate to the Colorado River and its tributaries.”20

The Orphan Mine, located on the Grand Canyon’s south rim, tapped into the area’s rich uranium deposits as recently as 1969. In a 2009 brochure, the National Park Service wrote that “percolating ground water picks up traces of the radioactivity and carries it to the surface in the bed of Horn Creek.” It warned hikers not to drink water from the stream “unless death by thirst is the only other option.”21

Uranium Pollution Debated

In the summary cited by BLM, Wenrich and Spencer considered “a hypothetical, worst-case, accidental uranium release to the Colorado River in which a truck hauling ten metric tons [22 tons] of ore is swept away by a flash flood on

Kanab Creek and its entire ore load is washed into the Colorado River where it is pulverized and dissolved over one year to become part of the dissolved uranium content of the river.” They concluded that this “extremely unlikely” scenario would lead to an “undetectable” increase in uranium concentration in the Colorado.22

Yet Wenrich and Spencer appear to have sig-nificantly underestimated the amount of ore and waste rock that could enter the Colorado.

Permits for mines proposed for the area suggest that mining operations could generate not only 30 tons of uranium ore but vastly more waste rock. Piles of waste rock contain uranium and other heavy metals, including arsenic and lead.23

“The amount of waste materials contaminated with uranium or arsenic that could be released

mined uranium.43 Uranium One USA, Inc. did not respond to a request for

comment. The Obama administration recently imposed sanctions on seven

foreign companies that supply or ship petroleum products to Iran because

the administration alleges that Iran uses proceeds from its petroleum

business to fund its nuclear program.44

Most uranium ore from mines near the Grand Canyon would likely be

sent to the White Mesa mill in Blanding, Utah, according to the Bureau of

Mines draft environmental impact statement. Denison Mines Inc. of Canada

owns White Mesa. Denison, in turn, is partly owned by the [South] Korean

Electric Power Company, which has two members on Denison’s board of

directors.45 KEPCO is involved in nuclear power projects around the world.

It leads a Korean consortium that won a $20 billion contract from the United

Arab Emirates in 2009 to build four 1,400-megawatt nuclear reactors for the

UAE.46

Denison is engaged in uranium mining projects in Canada, Mongolia

and Zambia. It has permits to export uranium from the U.S. to France and

Canada for partial processing. The ore is to be returned to the U.S. for

further processing.47

According to the Bureau of Land Management’s impact statement, some

uranium mined near the Grand Canyon might go to the Pinon Ridge mill

in Montrose County, Colo., to be run by Canadian-based Energy Fuels if it

opens in 2012 as planned48

Neither Denison nor Energy Fuels returned phone calls seeking

comment.

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 201110

e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

from any given storm event could be orders of magnitude greater than the 30 tons estimated,” said Jim Kuipers, a consulting mining engineer who has worked at uranium mining operations in the Southwest and has consulted for Earth-works.24

For example, in documents filed with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Denison Mines Corp. estimates that its Arizona 1 mine,25 now operating inside the million-acre area, produces 54,750 tons of waste rock a year. Denison estimates that three other mines the company would like to reopen inside the million-acre area would produce at least tens of thousands of tons of waste rock per year. Denison estimates that the Pinenut Mine would generate 40,000 tons a year,26 the Canyon Mine27 would produce 54,750 tons per year and the EZ Mine would produce 146,000 tons per year.28

In a paper published by the Arizona Geologi-cal Survey after the release of BLM’s environ-mental impact analysis, Spencer and Wenrich considered an additional scenario they termed “even more unlikely.” In this case, a flash flood washed 13,200 tons of uranium into the Colorado, where it dissolved over the course of a year. The researchers estimate that such an event would raise the Colorado’s uranium level from four parts per billion (ppb) to 12.8 parts

per billion, “still far below the 30 ppb EPA Maximum Contaminant Level.”

Kuipers commented in an interview with EWG that this scenario is “much more plausi-ble” given the amounts of ore and rock involved in the uranium mines that could be developed near the Colorado. He also expressed concern about the increased concentration of uranium in Spencer and Wenrich’s hypothetical.

“If you’re talking uranium, [that increase] is pretty significant to me,” he said. “There is no good quantity of uranium.”

EPA’s 30 ppb cap on uranium in water is a political compromise. The agency’s health goal for uranium in drinking water is zero.29 In a publication on uranium mining, the agency says that its drinking water regulation for uranium is based on toxicity to the liver, not the risk of cancer. Yet the agency lists both cancer and liver toxicity as health problems that would result from long-term exposure.30 The EPA’s health goal for arsenic in drinking water is also zero.31

Flash floods in the Grand Canyon area have been known to wash ore and waste rock down-stream, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. “These floods can effectively transport trace elements and radionuclides,”32 the agency said. In 1984, after a flash flood in a tributary north of the Grand Canyon, where one of three Hack

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 2011 11

Canyon mines was operating, the mine operator recovered radioactive rock from the streambed as far as a mile away.33

The USGS conducted experiments on materi-als from mines near the park, including unpro-cessed uranium ore and mined waste rock, and found that “in some instances, uranium con-centrations in the experimental leachates were very high – several hundred to several thousand parts per billion – but in natural settings such element-rich waters leached from mine sites are subject to very large dilutions as they mix with runoff.”34

Kuipers countered that while mine site con-tamination is subject to dilution from runoff, “toxic pollution such as that contained in the leachates from uranium mines should be pre-vented and not allowed into surface water at all. Diluting toxic substances is an unacceptable substitute for not releasing them to the environ-ment in the first place.”35

BLM: “Springs could dry up…”

Other experts have warned that uranium mining near the Grand Canyon could pollute water in and around the national park. David Kreamer of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, who has studied the Grand Canyon’s springs since the 1980s, told the House Natural Re-

sources Committee in 2009 that he is “pro-foundly concerned that mining [near the canyon] will damage the quantity and quality of Grand Canyon springs, and the plants and animals that depend on those springs.” Among those who depend on the springs are Native Americans and backcountry hikers.36 Another scientist, Abe Springer, a professor of hydro-geology at Northern Arizona University wrote in 2008 to Rep. Raul Grijalva, then chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, that “if mining or related mining activities were to cause [mineral] elements (and uranium) to become mobile and to enter the surface water, or groundwater flow system, they would move toward springs or wells which drain the regional aquifer… Once these elements became mobile through mining activi-ties, they would continue to be mobile through the aquifer and eventually discharge at springs impacting the human uses of water of these springs.”37

The Interior Department has highlighted risks to the canyon and area water supplies from uranium mining. The BLM draft environ-mental impact statement found that “springs could dry up” near the Grand Canyon as a result of uranium mining and that pollution in

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 201112

e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

groundwater could be “major.” It urged “a more thorough investigation of water chemistry in the Grand Canyon region … to better understand groundwater flow paths, travel times, and con-tributions from mining activities, particularly on the north side of the Colorado River” where most uranium mining would occur.38

Recommendations:

1. The Interior Department’s final envi-ronmental impact statement should disclose Wenrich’s financial interest in mining companies and mines in the Grand Canyon-Colorado River area. It should balance Wenrich’s research with research from independent scientists who do not stand to benefit financially from mining near the Grand Canyon. Federal regulations require that environmental impact analyses be prepared with “scien-tific integrity.” While it is inevitable that an environmental impact statement on uranium mining would include informa-tion from the uranium mining industry, industry connections should be clearly disclosed, especially the ownership of claims whose value could be directly affected by an Interior decision. Interior should not use research from scien-

tists who have a financial stake in the outcome.

2. As Earthworks and Environmental Working Group have urged in written comments, Interior should choose the most protective option and declare the million-acre area near the Grand Canyon off-limits to new mining claims for 20 years – the maximum allowed under federal law. The risks and uncer-tainties for the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are too great, especially when mining in the area would produce a mineral that will be used for nuclear power, which poses its own dangers. It is not worth it to take a gamble with our most treasured national park and the drinking water for 26 million Americans.

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 2011 13

References

1. American Energy Fields. American Energy Fields, Inc. Appoints Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Dr. Karen Wenrich To The Advisory Board, May 18, 2010. Accessed online June 8, 2011 at http://www.americanenergyfields.com/news/index.php?&content_id=26.

2. American Energy Fields, Inc., form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, February 23, 2011. Ac-cessed online June 8, 2011 at http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1430975/000146929911000112/aefform8k021511.htm. See also the accompanying news release accessed online at http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1430975/000146929911000112/aefexhibit991.htm.

3. Spencer and Wenrich published their findings in a full paper in April 2011. The full paper is discussed below.

4. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Northern Arizona Pro-posed Withdrawal, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Febru-ary 2011, at 4-80. Accessed online March 21, 2011 at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/mining/timeout.html. BLM appears to have cited the summary incorrectly by using a figure of 30 tons instead of the figure of 22 tons that Spencer and Wenrich use in their summary, but the agency accurately repeats the scientists’ con-clusion that the contamination would be “undetectable.” Spencer and Wenrich use the figure of 30 tons in their published paper that appeared after the BLM’s draft environmental impact statement was complete.

5. BLM LR2000 database downloaded March 1, 2011. Wenrich still holds the claims according to the June 1, 2011 download.

6. American Energy Fields, Inc., supra note 1.

7. See id.

8. Wenrich, Karen J. Testimony Before the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Natural Resources, July 21, 2009. Liberty Star Gold Corp. Liberty Star Appoints Dr. Karen Wenrich, World Renowned Uranium Expert, to the Technical Advisory Board, News Release, Novem-ber 1, 2005. Accessed online June 7, 2011 at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/291200/liberty_star_appoints_dr_karen_wen-rich_world_renown_uranium_expert/index.html.

9. Liberty Star’s form 10-QSB, filed with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission in 2006 says that “we have contracted with Dr. Karen Wenrich as a consultant on uranium exploration.” Liberty Star Gold Corp. Form 10-QSB filed with the U.S. Securi-ties and Exchange Commission, December 11, 2006. Accessed online May 19, 2011 at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1172178/000108503706002447/form10qsb985311.htm.

10. Wenrich, Karen J. and Spencer R. Titley. Uranium Explora-tion for Northern Arizona (USA) Breccia Pipes in the 21st Century and Consideration of Genetic Models. Arizona Geological Society Digest 22, 2008. Accessed online June 7, 2011 at acertgroup.com/23AGS22WenrichandTitley(final-Protect).pdf. Testimony of Karen J. Wenrich before the Congressional Field Hearing on “Commu-nity Impacts of Proposed Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon National Park,” March 28, 2008, Flagstaff, Arizona. Accessed on-line June 7, 2011 at naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/WenrichTestimony07.21.09.pdf.

11. 40 CFR § 1502.24 (2011).

12. Lower Colorado River Water Quality Partnership. Letter to Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal Project, Scott Florence, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip District Office, May 3, 2011.

13. See id.

14. U.S. Department of the Interior, What special provisions apply to operations on segregated or withdrawn lands? 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100 (2011). U.S. Department of the Interior, Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws, 73 Fed. Reg. 73,789, 73,791 (December 4, 2008).

15. U.S. Forest Service, Decision Memo, VANE Minerals Uranium Exploration Drilling Project, December 20, 2007. American Colloid v. Babbitt (American Colloid v. Babbitt). 1998. 145 F.3d 1152, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998).

16. Satchell, Michael. A New Battle over Yellowstone Park, U.S. News & World Report, March 13, 1995, pg. 34, 36. Havnes, Mark. Eureka! Gold Mine OKs Deal to Halt Mining Near Park, Salt Lake Tribune, September 26, 1997 at A28.

17. Pasternak, Judy. Blighted Homeland: A Peril That Dwelt Among the Navajos, Los Angeles Times, November 19, 2006 at A1.

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 201114

e w g . o r g + e a r t h w o r k s a c t i o n . o r g

18. Brugge, Doug et al. “The Sequoyah Corporation Fuels Re-lease and the Church Rock Spill: Unpublicized Nuclear Releases in American Indian Communities,” American Journal of Public Health, September 2007, Vol. 97, No.9. Accessed online August 6, 2009 at http://www.sric.org/Churchrock/SFCChurchRockA-JPH2007.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL Site Narrative for United Nuclear Corp. (Federal Register Notice, Sept. 8, 1983). Accessed online April 13, 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar766.htm. BLM, supra note 4, at 3-24.

19. Fahys, Judy. “Tons of Tainted Tailings are on the Move – Finally,” Salt Lake Tribune, May 4, 2009.

20. Supra note 12.

21. National Park Service. Tonto Trail: Bright Angel Trail to Hermit Trail, March 2009. Accessed online April 5, 2011 at http://www.nps.gov/grca/index.htm (search for “Tonto Trail” and select “Tonto Trail: Bright Angel Trail to Hermit Trail”).

22. Spencer, Jon E. and Karen J. Wenrich. The Grand Canyon Breccia-pipe Uranium Province, Northwestern Arizona, Abstract, September 2010 (on file with BLM).

23. U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Charac-terization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona, Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5025, 2010, at 10, 49, 56, 59.

24. Kuipers, Jim. Telephone interviews with Jim Kuipers, April 27, 2011 and June 7, 2011.

25. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Arizona Department of Environ-mental Quality Air Quality Class II Permit, Denison Mines (USA) Corp. – Arizona 1 Mine, Aug. 31, 2009. Accessed online May 2, 2011 at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/permits/denison.html.

26. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Class II Permit Application for the Pinenut Mine Project, Submitted to: Arizona Department of Envi-ronmental Quality Air Quality Division, January 2010. Accessed online April 25, 2011 at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/permits/denison.html.

27. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Class II Permit Application for the Canyon Mine Project, Submitted to: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division, April 2010. Accessed

online May 2, 2010 at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/permits/denison.html.

28. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Class II Permit Application for the EZ Mine Project, Submitted to: Arizona Department of Environ-mental Quality Air Quality Division, June 2010. Accessed online May 2, 2010 at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/permits/denison.html.

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Basic Information about Radionuclides in Drinking Water. Accessed online May 19, 2011 at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/radionuclides.cfm.

30. See id. See also, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (TENORM). 2008. Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining Volume 1: Mining and Reclamation Background. Accessed online April 19, 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/pubs.html.

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Basic Information about Arsenic in Drinking Water. Accessed online June 7, 2011 at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/arsenic.cfm.

32. USGS, supra note 23 at 143-144.

33. BLM, supra note 4, at 3-105. USGS, supra note 23 at 117.

34. USGS, supra note 23 at 130.

35. Kuipers, supra note 24.

36. Kreamer, David K. Testimony to the Subcommittee on Na-tional Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives Natural Resources Committee Hearing on the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 644, July 21, 2009. Accessed online August 6, 2009 at http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=165807.

37. Springer, Abe (Springer). 2008. Letter from Abe Springer, professor of hydrogeology at Northern Arizona University to Rep. Raul Grijalva, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, March 24, 2008.

38. USGS, supra note 24 at 193.

Environmental Working Group + Earthworks Conflict at the Canyon 2011 15

39. BLM LR2000, supra note 1. Bouw, Brenda. Nuclear Backlash Batters Uranium Sector, The Globe and Mail, March 17, 2011, at B10.

40. Uranium One. Financial Disclosure and Analysis, 2010. Ac-cessed online May 23, 2011 at http://www.uranium1.com/indexu.php?section=investors&page=0.

41. Yong, William and Andrew E. Kramer. With Russian Aid, Irani-ans Open Their First Nuclear Power Plant, The New York Times, August 22, 2010 at A8.

42. Fahys, Judy. Uranium-company Deal Near Done, Salt Lake Tribune, December 10, 2010. Bachus, Spencer et al. Letter to Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, October 5, 2010. Yong, William and Andrew E. Kramer. With Rus-sian Aid, Iranians Open Their First Nuclear Power Plant, The New York Times, August 22, 2010 at A8. Kramer, Andrew (Kramer). 2010. Russia Says It Will Take Major Step in Starting Up Iran Nuclear Plant, The New York Times, August 14, 2010, at A8.

43. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Telephone interviews with spokesperson from NRC, March 29 and 30, 2011.

44. Associated Press. U.S. Slaps Sanctions on State-owned Ven-ezuela Oil Firm for doing Business with Iran, May 24, 2011.

45. Denison. Annual Report 2010. Accessed online May 23, 2011 at http://www.denisonmines.com/home/home.

46. Mee-young, Cho. KEPCO Exec Sees Nuclear Setback after Japan Crisis, Reuters, April 29, 2011.

47. BLM, supra note 4 at B-27. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission. NRC License No. XSOU8823 for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. issued Dec. 17, 2010. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion. NRC License No. XSOU8798 for RSB Logistic Services Inc., et al. issued October 29, 2008.

48. BLM, supra note 4 at B-27.